The links I posted were for several studies from all over the world, using
different paleoclimate techniques, all confirming a MWP that was slightly warmer than today.
Loehle 2008 is one of several independent studies from all over the world using
different paleoclimate methodologies as well as actual physical evidence, which have also shown that there was a MWP, that it was global and that it was slightly warmer than today.
Chapter 6 highlights the fact that there are now a large number of
different paleoclimate studies which all lead to the same key conclusion that northern hemisphere mean temperatures in recent decades are likely unprecedented in at least a millennial timeframe.
Evidence of these changes is found in many parts of the Southern Hemisphere and in
different paleoclimate archives, but what prompted these changes has remained largely unexplained.
Not exact matches
«This does not necessarily mean that a similar response would happen in the future with increasing CO2 levels, since the boundary conditions are
different from the ice age,» added by Professor Gerrit Lohmann, leader of the
Paleoclimate Dynamics group at the Alfred Wegener Institute.
What
paleoclimate and oceanography researchers know of the mechanisms underlying such a climate «flip» suggests that global warming could start one in several
different ways.
This post examines natural
paleoclimate trends and simple characteristics of past and present climate cycles at
different time scales.
As we will show, Earth's
paleoclimate record makes it clear that the CO2 produced by burning all or most of these fossil fuels would lead to a very
different planet than the one that humanity knows.
However, it is not foolproof — a deeply flawed paper can end up being published under a number of
different potential circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the relevant field (e.g. a paper on
paleoclimate submitted to a social science journal) where the reviewers are likely to be chosen from a pool of individuals lacking the expertise to properly review the paper, (ii) too few or too unqualified a set of reviewers are chosen by the editor, (iii) the reviewers or editor (or both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paper's conclusions, and (iv) the journal may process and publish so many papers that individual manuscripts occasionally do not get the editorial attention they deserve.
Just a quick note to say that the
paleoclimate data for earlier warm periods 125,000 years ago and even 8 - 10,000 years ago in northern Alaska (
paleoclimate warmer than now, [from]
different forcings) document the northward advance of the treeline from Nome to Barrow, Alaska, and the Canadian border at
different times of change in Earth's orbital parameters (without a significant change in CO2).
That meant I had to learn how to read scientific papers, understand basic statistics and become literate in very
different fields from oceanography to
paleoclimate, none of which my degree in politics and modern history helped me with a great deal.
The
paleoclimate with CO2 at 3000 ppm was much
different to the current environment and would not have supported human life.
The figure in this comment shows almost all the
different types of estimates, including energy balance - type estimates (Instrumental), models,
paleoclimate, and some attempts to combine estimates.
Previous large natural oscillations are important to examine: however, 1) our data isn't as good with regards to external forcings or to historical temperatures, making attribution more difficult, 2) to the extent that we have solar and volcanic data, and
paleoclimate temperature records, they are indeed fairly consistent with each other within their respective uncertainties, and 3) most mechanisms of internal variability would have
different fingerprints: eg, shifting of warmth from the oceans to the atmosphere (but we see warming in both), or simultaneous warming of the troposphere and stratosphere, or shifts in global temperature associated with major ocean current shifts which for the most part haven't been seen.
That allows complex spectra to be understood through a process of parametrization - but each of those parameters (governing the gaps between
different energy levels of the same type) can not be obtained from an underlying theory, but must be found through measurements, for which statistics applies just as it does for any of these
paleoclimate temperature proxies.
Paleoclimate analysis is little
different from valence bond theory in its status as a scientifically valid but phenomenologically - based approach rather than something derived from first principles.
The tropical
paleoclimate proxies are conflicting and may be misinterpreted; the high latitude responses may be arising under
different circumstances.
My subsequent work over many years has explored several
different aspects of the field of
paleoclimate.
This post examines natural
paleoclimate trends and simple characteristics of past and present climate cycles at
different time scales.
Computer models can be used predict
different future climate patterns, and
paleoclimate data provides a useful framework from which to base these models.
As we will show, Earth's
paleoclimate record makes it clear that the CO2 produced by burning all or most of these fossil fuels would lead to a very
different planet than the one that humanity knows.
there is no credible way for the
paleoclimate to be very
different from what has been described so far.
But the
paleoclimate record indicates that a somewhat
different series of events — which is still not fully understood — caused the periodic warming of the planet.
[DB] «Although the study of
paleoclimate is interesting, we can derive so little of use from these studies, apart from saying that conditions were
different.»
--
paleoclimate data reflecting past climate states very
different from today — climate response to volcanic eruptions, solar changes and other non-greenhouse gas forcings — timescales
different from those relevant for climate stabilization, such as the climate response to volcanic eruptions
When I published my
paleoclimate reconstruction, it was specifically to show that leaving out tree rings gave a
different result, but the criticism was that it wasn't «good» — but I didn't say the endeavor was even possible and clearly stated the limitations of the data.